tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 7, 2014 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
[inaudible] so you can see it on their main page. after this new owner took office, they even establish some kind of, like fellowship department. so now they just shut down, i mean, they just shut it down just right there. it's impossible to find work for me. maybe still exist but nobody will read it. and nowadays it's probably -- [inaudible] the famous magazine, it's like maybe for middle-class. now nobody just reads it. that's the story. >> what was your role there? >> i was blogger, one of the bloggers on the platform, yes. you can find it.
or i can send you link. >> how about your website you're currently editing? have you experienced interference with that? >> sometimes i write freelance, and the problem in ukraine is the art, i don't know, because everything is changing over time, but not so many online media which are still object to we can just mention on the, like maybe my colleagues want to sponsor something. what else? it's like probably ukraine "washington post." >> question down here in the front. >> i am from the ukraine but i got my masters here. my question is quite provocative one but i believe you're the
right audience to ask it. let's imagine for a while that referendum is going to happen in crimea very soon, it is legitimate and observers, international community recognizes that it is free and fair and people vote for joining the russian federation. would you accept this referendum? and do you think that this might be a solution for current crisis, first to prevent crimea -- [inaudible] and secondly given the fact that the crimea is the only place, is the only region in ukraine whether what you're actually our russian nationals, not russian citizens but russian nationals. thank you. >> first of all, the referendum, like i said before in my speech, that the referendum on
territorial issues can only be conducted at the ukrainian level, okay? cannot be conducted like that. then it will be considered -- no, you cannot imagine something that is against the constitution of ukraine. article 72 i think, i can tell you in one moment. article ii of the constitution of ukraine said that territory of ukraine within its borders, that's like it cannot be violated, okay? in accordance to article 73. the constitution of ukraine decides the issues, the issues of territories of ukraine, of exchanges or changes can only be decided during ukrainian national referendum.
so it's legally impossible to do. if it is done it will be considered illegitimate. so the russians refuted as a condition. [inaudible] >> well, crimea is a territory of ukraine. you cannot decide issues of territorial issues based on that decision. so the supreme council of crimea is -- [inaudible] >> i talke >> i talked to my frigid issues at all russians have other threats and she said it's already decided, like i the way people vote by the way, but thet definitely, even those were against joining russia for being kind of separate country, structure, they are very disappointed that they did not even hope that this sort of random will show that may be
given if people would be pro-ukrainian or wouldn't be able to join, we be willing to join to stay in ukraine. the random they seem by the general populace by the thing that it's already been decided and that maybe you see the funny way that the word the questions, there are only two options. they want to join rush or i want to be, a separate country. there is the option to stay like it is, like to stay in ukraine. you cannot as a sociologist i would never ever let somebody worded the question in this way. >> the resolution come at the same time they want to conduct -- [inaudible] there is even that controversy in doing this. >> despite this referendum anyway? like it that happens in nine days. so i think the solution, they
would just organize it. the best solution now i think is to make it, to send a lot of journalists there, tv, members of international media, maybe observers. anyway, it's illegal. the question, your question, what if it happened, and it will happen -- >> would you accept a? >> nobody -- >> decision to join rush of? >> it has to be done at international level. it cannot begin -- >> my question is if people vote -- [talking over each other] >> you cannot accept their decision. it is like even before consider as illegitimate. so of course i will not accept that. >> ask ourselves what you do after. after march 16.
>> we have to -- [inaudible] >> we have to acknowledge, don't wait for the 16th of march. >> okay. well, we have reached our one hour. show we take one last question down here and then we will wrap up. >> i am from georgia. i have question on public perception on whether they have started to discuss the changing online, policy and joining nato. we joined nato and what is public mood in this regard. but before that i would like to comment on previous issue. of course, none of these
referendum could be considered legitimate once it's conducted. purely it is the most strongest argument why we're denouncing the outcome of this referendum. >> actually i'm sorry, because i do not have recent data, because we have usually have -- toward your opinion, to nato to other, and it is, speaking about european union versus euro asian and russian, eastern countries, a recent poll shows about two-thirds of people supported european integration and one-third of people over all ukraine supported russian integration. speaking about the nato, i personally think that the attitude will change now more in favor of the nato because as
people see we need this cooperation, we need to protect ourselves. we need to be more integrated and international community, international defense system. and yeah, so while i don't know the exact numbers for now, i can just assume that it will gain more support, saying all this russian occupation is going on. >> i think we have to be careful with this, because -- and different media and newspapers. i think that it will come as iryna said, we have to think about it now and many people will change mood prior to proceeding with this membership and all the activity, discussions with nato. we have to prepare ukrainian people, to present them with unbiased and clear information what nato is.
we have to do it after we stabilize the situation now in crimea, and when we have a threat of russian occupation forces in ukraine. because now they can be used against us, but when they will be out then we can speak about it. but yeah, like i said before, this draft law and making amendments to the laws of ukraine and basics of national security and basics on domestic and foreign policy of ukraine. these amendments will change, will and the provisions because we're talking about mutual status and substitute them by the provisions on pursuing nato membership in the future. so it doesn't say it will happen right away but we have to think about it. and i think we should send a
clear message to russia that, into the world, that we will proceed with it. because like all the intergovernmental agreements, international agreements, they didn't really help us to preserve our and territorial integrity. we had the third largest nuclear potential in the world. we gave it up and it was based on the condition of getting assurances of non-violating of territorial integrity of ukraine from uk, u.s., russia, and china joined this. so but, you see now russia has conducted discussion with us, consultations, the threat of territory integrity but they are violator of this memorandum of
the u.n. charter and of our into governmental agreement. that was signed in 1997. so we have to do it because when you see this document, and i think we should raise the issue of maybe renewing our nuclear guarantees. i don't know, because many actors speak about is that in ukraine so maybe we should just raise the issue of this. because our nuclear weapons, we didn't get anything in response. we cannot stay neutral. i think we should be integrated into nato into medium and interim term perspective. we cannot do that right away. we should slowly. by signing this plan with this approach european union integration, but right now we
should also associate agreement as soon as possible i think. and then want to proceed with membership action plan in the future. and by the way, nato altered consultations with russia just a couple days ago. but nato sent a clear message that they are interested in conducting, and proven cooperation -- [inaudible] and has been an active member in office separation. >> thank you, maxim. i think we will let nikolai also weighed in on this. >> i am familiar with your country. yeah, just like short remark because now we have a lot of
parallels. russian always use the same scale. just to make clear what would happen with crimea in social media like now in ukraine this year, a lot of what like pictures. it's a part of georgia actually and it was one of the most popular probably, most attended. it's situated on the bank of -- [inaudible] now this territory, despite during the soviet times it was -- region. it could be good example for people in crimea how russians about territory, what they expect. >> okay.
thank you very much, audience. thank you to our panel today. great insight. thank you all for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] we will bring you more about ukraine later today at the brookings institution. they will have a discussion with panelists looking at where the crisis might the next and how the u.s. and europe might
respond to and diffuse the standoff in crimea. that's coming up at 2 p.m. eastern. watch it live here on c-span2. elsewhere nearby washington today the conservative political action conference, or cpac, continues its winter meeting expecting to the group right now author and director dinesh d'souza and you can follow that live over on c-span or we are following your comments on facebook. scott riding conservative political action conference kind of an oxymoron if you ask me. judging from the little to nothing to have accomplished in the senate lately. george says it's so reassuring and refreshing to know there are some righteous and moral americans still left in this great country. we welcome your reaction and comments on cpac, facebook.com/cspan is a website. and on twitter at c-span scheppach the labor department released february unemployment figures are despite adding one or 75,000 jobs, th the unemployt rate picked up the 6.7%.
some reaction to the numbers. the white house issued a statement from jason furman saying in part, february 2014 was the 48th straight month >> suffice it to say, most of health policy really isn't health policy at all. it is essentially budget policy. and so the congress just docs on so many of the big issues and ends up putting together
something that in the parliament of washington might be called a patch to maybe it's an extension. maybe it's called a stopgap. but the fact is it ducks the big issues and it repeatedly ducks the big issues, particularly on medicare when you're 10,000 people eligible for medicare every day. there is a very real cost attached with that. so now the challenge is to try to find a way to move beyond this fixation on budgeting. it would be one thing if it was sound budget policy, but so often we, as i've indicated, don't get a constructional kind of issues, and move beyond this sort of lurch one kind of budget calamity to another and come up with some principle budget policy. >> this weekend, senate finance committee chair ron wyden on the challenges facing medicare and
hospitals saturday morning at 10 a.m. eastern. on booktv the historical and cultural ties between russia and ukraine sunday at 5:45 p.m. on c-span2. on c-span3's american history tv, the grounds and architecture of george washington's mount vernon sunday night at 8 p.m. >> dan pfeiffer, senior advisor president obama sat down for an interview yesterday with political correspondent mike allen at the top explained the administrations new sanctions over russia's intervention in ukraine. he also spoke about the white house communication habits, including the reliance on twitter and what the president likes to read. this is about 50 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome politico's chief white house correspondent mike allen.
[applause] >> good morning and welcome to the playbook breakfast. thank you for bearing with us as we rescheduled the time and place because of the ice. i think my political colleagues and the white house are making this new gig available and for you all for coming. want to thank c-span for caring as lives. welcome to c-span viewers. welcome to our live streaming viewers. we would love to take your questions as we go, tweet us at #playbookbreakfast. we've got the twitter machine up your and i will take your questions. like to thank bank of america for the continued partnership in making these conversations available. we've had a great year already looking for to talking about the issues that matter most this year goes along, so they keep to bank of america for that. we are honored to have been one, assistant to the president -- dan pfeiffer, first energy and communication. event has been with the
president since day one. actually a negative on. dan pfeiffer joined the obama campaign the day before the president announced his exploratory committee back on martin luther king day 2007. he's been with them every single day in the whit white house. before that he worked for vice president gore, he was on the hill with leader daschle, tim johnson and senator evan bayh. and as most of you know, he is a wilmington guide and a georgetown guy. so thanks for being with us and dan pfeiffer, welcome. [applause] >> good morning. thanks for coming. dan, thank you for coming. we always start with the news. the president, this morning the president issued an executive order and message to the president which provided the framework for you to issue some sanctions, the centrality regard to ukraine to tell us what the president did and why it
matters. >> it's part of our effort to do with the situation in ukraine. two steps. one is as you make an executive order, framework for potential sanctions and the state department at the present is issuing these advanced individuals have been involved in the situation in ukraine. that is part of our effort including engage with allies. secretary kerry is and your right now working on this to do with the russian intervention in ukraine and ensure we do with the crisis at hand. >> is there a sense of crisis deescalate? >> i don't think we know that you. we are monitoring it very closely, continue to the rush on the russians in every way we possibly can and what's most important is we are supporting the ukrainian people and their government. we're working to do that, getting some loan guarantees to the ukrainian government, coordinating the europeans and the p7 to also support them. so there's a whole array here. today's executive order is one part of that.
>> the president made an unusual visit to the white house briefing room at the end of the day responding to some facts have been coming in on the ground. how did you make that call and how did you know what was happening on the ground? >> in a couple ways. first, as we get information is always important i think for the american people to hear from the president in times of tumult and crisis. i do have a situation where you have russia heading in, moving troops into crimea, part of ukraine. the american people have been following the situation pretty closely over the several weeks as we were dealing with sort of the political tumult there and the change in government. it's important for the president to get out the sns with good information. we get information to a lot of ways. we have a lot of sources but in this day and age with twitter and social media, you start to see pictures of troops in front of aces or airports that will
give us only to follow up on. >> in the white house twitter is now part of your information flowed? >> absolutely. we've seen this for years now. we certainly saw it, particularly more closed societies where we have potential less information like in iran during some of the political uprisings, early in the presidency. gilbert a lot what's happening. we found out a lot of what was happening in the arab spring by folks on the ground doing individual reporting in social media or skype or. it gives you a sense of what's happening spent on saturday -- >> i would say that's one data point in a long list of things we look at as we analyze the situation. >> on saturday, the president had a remarkable call with president putin. you announced it was 90 minutes. you don't always tell us information like that. take away, say, half for interpretation. said he had 45 minutes of content. that is a long called for two
guys who don't have a lot to say to each other right now. >> actually that is -- if you think about all the calls, 90 minutes isn't particularly longtime but i thought that was worth noting in the readout. president obama and president putin have had a lot of opportunities to talk over the last several years. these are bilateral situations. they are often long and vigorous. i think that's how i would describe this one. >> what's the president like behind the scenes in a crisis like this is unfolding? which is in no? >> is mo is to make sure we are responding rapidly speeds know, any what's he like a a? does he care his hair? >> he never tears his hair and he never sweats. >> how about you? >> a little bit of both, but i think what he often tries to do is take a step back. make sure we respond as rapidly
can also take a step back let's make sure what we are doing is not just tactically smart but strategically smart to what is our end goal and how are the steps were going to take to get to the? that have to do with the exact -- exacts at a press the many, what are our political opponents demanding. it's what is our end goal. and what he's willing to come in this is one of ther there is whi tear my heart out sometimes, but is going to take some heat in the short term for a better long-term role. we saw this in libya when we had a lot of critics that we weren't moving fast enough, not doing the right thing and then over the course of time the strategy worked. >> when he's hatching a something like this, like emily going to going globa global television, a momentous decision, does he want a lot of people around his desk, around the table, a couple people? was his style? >> i think there's sort of two
elements. one is where making a policy decision to he wants a lot of people around the table and he wants, he will set up the discussion to hear from people who disagree with them. will sort play devil's advocate and draw that out. a lot of times you said in the situation room, sort of the principles are at the main table the staffers are in the back bench. the president will often usually sorted be the law professor element, president obama will randomly call on some of the folks in the back bench. they're even more speed than the people of the table, details in the minutes. you've got to be ready when you're sitting in the back bench for him to call you out and ask for your opinion. you've got to be prepared to give it even if it's not a popular opinion in the room. >> has he ever caught you would you mind on the blackberry? >> for chile we don't have the blackberry but you have to be ready at all times. >> has he ever caught you mentally mapping? >> absolutely.
it's been more than five years now, it's been known to happen. it's got to recover quick. >> you are at five for 44 on twitter. what tweet has got the most engagement? >> this is by more circumstance then being clever, but the night bin laden was killed, i was the one who happened to be first out to tweak the president was going to address the nation. >> what you mean you happened to be the first? >> i was faster than jay carney. so -- >> the press secretary. >> you think back to that moment, no one, you know, so much we tell the president will address the nation. no one knows what's that is about. speculation both good and bad about what could happen. so that got a lot of attention to that was by far my biggest follower growth was in that night. >> able expect the government,
twitter feed them to be kind of dry. you throw elbows on your twitter feed. we had a tweet from the other day. you said gop criticism of president obama jumped the shark day when they started saying benghazi is one of the reasons for what's happening in crimea. >> i did. i think twitter is a very, it's a necessary element to any communication strategy and politics these days. it is where the debate is really shaped. it's really where the elite political debate is chipped. we saw this morning the first debate in 2012. there is no question in my mind that the twitter reaction to the president's performance greatly exacerbated the coverage and the reaction to it. so you have to be in there mixing it up. every day, republican senators, congressmen, staffers are out there trying to characterize the president's motives, his
than it was when you were elected in 2012? >> i think it will be every day exponential. i think 2012 was, for the most part, twitter is a more elite conversation. it is how reporters are viewing events and shaping that. it's how the most politically involved folks are looking at it. i think by 2014, twitter will be a little bit more like facebook than it was in 2012. i think there will be more people getting their information from it, so it'll have more effect on the populace than 2012. >> last question is as a result of that, how is what you're doing with twitter as an institution changing? >> we are looking at different ways of doing it every day. in the last year or so at about 140 characters than whether what you're doing with graphics and images. some of the most retweeted
things we have our charts and graphics. so we are thinking about how are we going to -- instead of any policy, what is the graphic representation of this that is shareable on twitter and facebook. >> if there were not enough happening this week was your long senate budget week. on business week joshua green calls obama's $3.9 trillion campaign act. >> i think that there's a little bit of a short-term memory about the way folks have covered this. traditionally budgets or the president -- particularly in the divided government it serves two purposes. one is it a very specific line item model for the appropriations committee who are going to find that the government. that hasn't been as relevant in a recent years because they haven't been able to pass appropriations bills. they are doing continuing resolutions. this year we have the bills
because the budget agreement. so it's a significant purpose there. it also lays out a vision for how the president governed with a long-term vision is, what we should be investing and the deficits. last yeadeficit. last year we took a detour from the traditional path and embedded in the budget the last offer the president made speaker boehner in 2012 as an attempt to jumpstart additional negotiations to get rid of the sequester and tr to try to resoe the issue we've been dealing with -- sort of dancing around getting it done for a long time, but not able to close with republicans. hoping we put forward some potential compromises on the entitlement reform. the very specific thing being what they called change cpi, the cost of living. >> you pulled back from that. >> that is the thing in all of the negotiations with speaker boehner, the one thing he said any deal had to have was changed cpi so they could put it in the budget and hopefully they would come forward and say here are
some tax loopholes we closed come here is some revenue some h taxes. through many celebrated dinners and meetings and coffees with the president and republicans they never offered a single tax holes that they would close. so we go back to the way we traditionally did the budget. the offer is on the table if they want to do that, but we have returned to a normal order of budgeting. >> yesterday you were on air force one and traveled with the president to connecticut. he was talking about the budget. he focused on income any quality. do you see that helping or hurting the red and purple state senators who are up in 2014? >> the way the president said it is there is the challenge for the american economy coming in for the middle class folks is a shrinking opportunity. shrinking the liberty. one of the causes of that is the growing of the income equality. also larger factors like globalization, changing
technology that allow factories and producers to be more efficient in labor. so, in a state of the union he laid down the agenda but to restore opportunity and deal with the rising income equality. and i think the model the president laid out in the state of the union and then also in a speech he gave at the dnc on friday -- which a lot of people didn't think it would happen after the situation in ukraine escalated -- dot laid out with my belief is a model that democrats in red states, blue states and purple states all can run on. there's tremendous unanimity around the agenda in the democratic party. the good news is in the election that is where the public focus is. >> but there's been a shift in the rhetoric from income equality to growth and opportunity. how did that come about? >> i think income inequality is a tremendous challenge to address.
it is just one piece of the very important piece, but one piece of the overall economic plan. so we want to make sure that we are talking about how we are dealing with income equality, economic mobility, economic growth, creating jobs -- [inaudible] [inaudible] -- more or less likely to vote for somebody that supported minimum wage. 50% more likely. >> and it's a powerful issue
among republicans. and independent. so compare the minimum wage. 50% more likely to support the minimum wage and 34% more likely to support someone who is supporting acf said it is an independent gap. among dependent it is 53 code 35. a 15-point gap. there is an issue because america will view this as a value issue, which is if you work full-time in the country you shouldn't live in poverty. republicans have no good argument against it. the argument is -- they say the speaker boehner in response to the event yesterday said that there is proof that the minimum wage kills jobs. the argument that is if that is your belief, which is the minimum wage be? is the current rate correct? should it be less? if we had a lower wage would that create more jobs? there is a values issue there is a good consensus around. it is a high 60% issue with tremendous intensity. republicans are on the wrong
side. dan pfeiffer, one of your legacies would be, that you claimed [inaudible] how does that come about your way of referring to the president new kind of bully pulpit executive action? >> one of the things -- as we were thinking about 2014 and -- the year, not the election -- >> oh come on -- >> -- it is, you know, we live in a world without a government. even in the greatest come in the time of greatest comedy on capitol hill it isn't realistic to expect the congress to pass the agenda and not realistic to expect a democratic president to sign the congress agenda. how are we going to restore opportunity and invest? how are we going to move the ball forward on the president's agenda? is going to be through premier league for these executive powers with some real potential
exceptions on immigration and other issues in congress. there are two ways. there is the pen which is his executive orders, regulations, minimum wage, executive order which means if you want to get a federal contract starting next year, you're going to have to pay your workers $10.10. but there's a whole other element which is the idea that is convening authority to the president, the power of his popularity through the power of the residents into social media to draw attention to issues and mobilize people to do it. we are looking for a way to -- how do you describe that in a way people will understand because convening authority is a name we tried to ban in the white house. and so it is really the president. and this is tremendously powerful. a couple examples a is we have n initiative called connected which is done through the authority where we are going to spend -- provide access to
high-speed wireless -- >> you put together a billion dollars. >> the president making, urging the technical industry there's been a billion dollars in commitments from one of the biggest tech companies for technology in the schools are tablets, computers. that's an example. we saw a perfect example in the minimum wage yesterday. the president -- we were trying to pass legislation by senator harkin and congressman miller through congress. but that is not passing legislation is one way in which we will achieve the president's goal of raising wages for the american people. we do it for the executive order. order. that's a couple hundred thousand people. we are urging states and cities to use local referendum and measures to do it. we were with several governors in the northeast to endorse the $10.10 minimum wage but we are also calling on companies to do it. most famously the gap that we
are going to raise wages to $10 an hour, that's about 65,000 employees. when we arrived in boston yesterday for a fundraiser, you open up the "boston globe" and a different section is a full-page ad from a guy named ernie that owns a car dealership in the massachusetts area. it says i did it. and he declares he is goin he'so raise wages to $10.10 for his employees. and it encourages other companies to do it. we are trying to grow momentum and that is in the boy pulled it and it's going to make a difference. at the end of the year we want to pass and we are going to push hard to do that. but our goal is we are going to have the evaluators -- on this specific issue how many people's wages have we raised? >> but how did you claimed that it could -- [inaudible] it was a process of trial and error. an effort to stop everyone in the white house from stopping the convening authority and it's
a much simpler and easier understood you to >> you have personally been involved in pushing the department and the domestic policy council and different parts of the government to come up with stuff the president can do on his own, but it's hard because the good stuff you did with your previous push we can't waste. >> i think, you know, i think that we have tried to -- the president sort of ordered us to project more creativity and thinking into uses of executive authority. we have done a lot of executive authority. most notably the action for population known as the dream students and stuff on student loans and clean energy and stuff in the past. but this year now he basically said we have three years left. this is the greatest opportunity we are going to have.
so let's inject new creativity into the way of thinking and new energy. let's go outside of the building and talk to people. >> did he specifically tell you to think bigger? >> he's a think bigger and think harder. and so that's in several ways. we have some new folks in here in the white house like john podesta who has an expertise in this matter. he's been helpful on this. we have new cabinet members this time in this term. we are -- we are going outside talking to academics, business folks, placebo, alumni from our administration and others, republicans and democrats. we are going back to the agencies and the department saying what is it yo you lookedt but decided not to do? do? do? but just got off and give it another look. there may be a reason you didn't, it may be in a context that's different now, it may be something we wanted to hold off
on because a legislative pass we were trying to preserve. >> there's an ongoing governmentwide effort to find more things the president can do under executive action that you personally are pushing on. >> we are pushing very hard to look for things. the president wants to be out of -- everyday we are not moving the ball forward is a day we aren't going to get back. >> the president in his second term has been taking more risks. we see one example of this with the first lady. let's move. in the first permit was more encouragement. this year we are seeing a little bit of the fittest regulations on food. food. are we going to see the president of the tougher in the second term? will he have the freedom to take more risks? >> i think, you know, i would say that back in the first term it wasn't a risk-free endeavor. taking the steps to save the auto industry when every poll in putting in michigan said that was a terrible idea and a great risk. so i think that that -- we were
not cautious in the first term. there is certainly a freedom in your thinking in a second term because the political pressure we try to take advantage of that to do more things. >> well we see a little bit more of a community organizer influence in the second term? >> i am not entirely sure what that means. i think that the efforts that you referred to are something that grows from the president's experience and it's not just experience from the organizer it's the community organizer in the belief that change happens from the bottom-up, no bottom up down. and so i think we will always try to build on that. >> as long as i've known you going back to the hill you have been fascinated by how the ideas spread. how people get their impressions and how they change so dramatically in the time that you have been in the white
house. look ahead. think about what your successor is going to face. how do you imagine the media in the environment in five years? >> i have a great sympathy for whoever has my job in five years because the speed at which things are happening is looking exponentially every year. the change in technology in 2,008 the obama campaign we broke all kinds of barriers on the internet campaign. we were pushing the envelope into the obama campaign sent one tweet in 2008. by the time 2012 comments, twitter is driving the debate. it's a huge piece of the strategy. we spend time every day thinking about how to use twitter in the campaign. so, there will be something in 202016. we don't know what it is yet, but i can promise you it's going to make -- it's going to be faster and with greater
potential benefits and also greater risks. and it will probably be great for campaigns and make governing harder. >> dan, why does it make governing harder? >> i think because governing takes time. you have to take decisions. you have to make decisions that have good substantive outcomes that are thought through, and basically the entire -- what used to take a week or two weeks in terms of the press cycle of people, let's take ukraine as an example. ten years ago, maybe five years ago, something happened in ukraine. the president goes out, then everyone is altogether on it. we are united, and then we see how the strategy plays itself out and maybe there's a critic at a moment where the press turns, you know the press turns on you and now that all happens.
the president spoke at like 4:00 with the dnc giving a speech at 5:00 and all of that happened off the stage with the dnc. and so it lends itself -- it makes it harder to be deliberative and strategic in an environment where -- if you use a sports metaphor, it used to be that you would read a story about the baseball game that night or the next day. now the equivalent would be we are not just writing a story about it every inning you we are writing it in every pitch. everything has to be, you know, there is an alliance of hyperbole or apocalyptic description of it in every moment. like this is the greatest foreign-policy crisis the president has ever had -- >> but that's actually true.
>> it may be and it may not be. we don't know at this point. they did a google search into their is a long line of them intandsome of them were tested d some of them went away pretty quick. >> every speech was the speech of his life. so, how do you guard against that? owere what do you do about it? >> he's a very deliberative person. and so, he has -- >> does he's slow you down? >> he slows all of us down, myself included. before we act, before we go out and do something, he will take a step back. he is always urging us to play the long game to think through how this is going to affect our ultimate goal. the other thing is experience. the longer he is here, you have
the ability to signal. what is a real political problem, real legislative problem and what is the fleeting thing of the moment? i was thinking about this when secretary gates book came out and there was -- while that book was very generous to the president there were some metrics that were taken and blown up to be this week thing. he took it very in strike. i'm confident that for years prior people were running around like a chicken with their head cut off and it turns out like three days later the fires now burning hotter and faster than they did before but a few days later. >> he pointed out the president
saying for those of you writing memoirs you've been involved in various roles and cooperating and participating in. how do you feel about the fact is that inhibit you at all? >> first how does it feel to have your sort of day-to-day worklife written about in books? now it's not just the books. politico does this at times and every event is written -- i say this is generously -- in the style of writing what was everyone thinking in the room and it's all very dramatic.
you go back and plans through these books and you don't even remember the day the historical and analysis of the presidency so i say that the reporters who are writing about these books imagine if someone went into your workplace and wrote about everyday you had like a reporter embedded in politico or elsewhere. it's all interesting and important because the government and the white house can also be boring on a daily basis. when you write books a lot of the stuff is inaccurate, it just feels to me when i read it later as more dramatic than it really was. and i think in terms of colleagues writing memoirs you
can't see one way that pressure would be. he's taking notes. but someone is going to write about it a year from now, ten years from now, but if you worry about that you're basically going to sit in the office all day long. >> do a lot of people take notes? >> i don't know if anyone that's taking them for the express purpose. i expect that a lot of our colleagues in the long run that is a good thing. when i was reading the book last year the most recent one is that it's an amazingly detailed portrait of the presidency and the books that my colleagues will write out informed that about president obama and have a
historical benefit. >> is taking notes in the meetings frowned on? >> it's part of the job. i thought about that. i don't know. i don't know who wouldn't want to read that book. it's an interesting thing to do and having been here every day, i've seen some perspective only a small handful of other people have because there's only a few select group of tiger to have done the whole thing without a break. so i think that a book about --
there's the historical benefit for here is one person's view of how the decision was made. there was also some perspective on what it's like to govern in this day and age. >> january 20, 2017 what is the likelihood? >> i don't think it's high. >> but it's not impossible? >> it's close to impossible. but i don't know. there is a -- any of the jobs in the white house and on capitol hill or anywhere else of the day it is no longer a thrill. if you can't find one reason to be thrilled during the day when you work in the white house, then it's probably time to go. people leave for very good reasons. i don't know when that will happen. there were times i thought it was close to happening, but i --
this year has been the most exciting year that i've worked in the white house to date. i think there's a new energy. the presidents focused. we have a map and a plan of how we are going to use the next three years to advance the agenda, and i think it is very energizing. when it's no longer advertising that's when -- >> that's a remarkable statement because it isn't apparent on the outside. what is the trigger for that? >> a little bit is you feel the ticking clock. three years from now seems like a century to me. it doesn't feel like this is going to end tomorrow. but you know you've got, you know, you will never have a great opportunity in your life to do the work you have right now. so how can we maximize it, how can we do real things? this is the greatest job i will
ever have, and so that's exciting and i think people feel that it's like 2013 is viewed as a terrible year for the president, and it is an annoying year in a lot of places. it was distracting and challenging and we've made some mistakes of it. we have made progress and when you think back of it we were living forward and doing things like that. if you don't expect this to happen and you do not dwell on it if you have a republican senate in january, 201 2015 whih was being the totally republican capital what would be your strategy agenda for dealing with that? >> i'm not planning on it. we are not preparing for it. i'm very confident that democrats will maintain the
senate. i think that if you and i were having this conversation at this point in 2012. harry reid is still the leader and i think that what happen again and we are going to -- that is where we are going to focus. >> let's talk about what it would mean. mean. would mean the toes and investigations and what else? >> i think that it would mean a loss for an agenda that people care about and support. it is most notably the every night of the judicial executive nominations. i imagine the republicans would block almost everything. the fact that the president got nominees is going to have a consequence for an agenda and jurisprudence the president cares about. that wouldn't have been in the senate. the ability to pass the budget
deal not everything but for transportation and education that would happen in the republican senate. >> in the republican house and republican senate i promise would spend all of its time creating jobs to appeal the affordable care act. it is a wasted opportunity. >> june of 2017 you turned down that big job. you were the washington bureau chief of "the new york times." how do you change the structure of how the presidency is covered? >> this is a fascinating question because i think that both in the way in which the white house does this are both outdated in that meeting. things are moving too fast to
make those changes right now but it's a fair amount which i think is critically important that there is a place during some point in time on camera where the white house has questions on the press. i think that's important. does it make sense that it happens at one in the afternoon at the time when people are in the mid morning and late morning at that point? probably not. but that is kind of both. you've got to think about it. there's a couple things i would suggest that may make more sense in the course of time. it's generally in the coverage of the white house would be more potentially fewer folks that are sort of general reporters in the subject matter experts who covered the beat and the white house becomes a part of the beat. so instead of the fact we are dealing on the aca or immigration instead of the fact
that reporters faced the story the healthcare story they are covering the white house there. they want more expertise. they don't need as much to know what happened that day. it's less in-depth analysis. it would be good for the white house to have more policy. i think the other thing that you would want to do is hire some very smart technological people to figure out how you can take the content you get from reporting and transport it into a more friendly format, a more visual format. so, i think that is the graphics in the videos i think would be a big piece of covering what happens in 2017 and i think that last but not least, you would want to dedicate to people who
would cover the white house full-time or close to full-time in the long-term journalism. so, you have some capacity to regularly write up. >> how can you imagine modernizing that briefing? what takes the form of the 1:00 on camera people in the seats. what could you imagine -- >> i don't have the answer to that. i spent a lot of time in 2008, early 2009 during the transition thinking about how we could do it differently. and i don't know a good answer to that. is it a shorter briefing in the morning? is it something later in the day? is there a way in which people can get answers to questions?
is there a way in which you can get the public more involved? how do you reach beyond? they should be the center of this in all scenarios. but how do you have a situation where some of the folks out in the country, public reporters who aren't at the briefing purpose of hate and not in a way -- participate in that in a way. >> can you imagine experimenting in those or do you think you are stuck with what you've got? >> i think that that would be hard to do. i think that it would really -- there are some things only a new president can do. >> y. from your view is that archaic? >> i think that for the folks at work in the press on the front line sales reporters, they talked to the reporters who are in the briefing ten times by the time they get to ask a question.
>> behind the curtain? >> yeah. they've already written their stories and tweeted about it. so that is the chance on camera jay has to be on account i think that is very important. but, it isn't as important as -- that used to be the one shop to get an answer but doesn't matter because you are going to write one story indeterminate in at 6:00 and you were going to do one broadcast at 6:30. >> we are about to get to the hook. what is a book that you have read recently that you would recommend to people? >> over the course of the holidays, i read two books thinking about the job and that was peter baker's book the administration they and i went back and read john harris on bill clinton and the survivor.
what was useful to me on that is of all of the descriptions of our 2013, life is just really hard in the white house, and i looked at that and i said our 2013 seemed a lot better than almost every year of the bush administration and clinton administration. to give you some perspective. >> in september you have a heart scare poll scare. you were hospitalized twice. what has changed as a result of that? >> i think that gave me a real perspective. >> tell us what happened. >> ironically enough, i was at a dinner with reporters during the preparations in syria in the oval office addresses and essentially had what was in layman's terms to be a mini
stroke which is i sort of lost feeling in sort of the right side of my body. scary at the time. went to the hospital, got very good health coverage -- very good health care from the white house doctors serious >> george washington? >> i was closer to gw. what was -- i was very fortunate to bear. the mistake i made is i went to work the next day and ended up back in the hospital. but it gave me a lot of perspective on sort of how fragile all of this is in the need for care and i've taken some steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. i've been pretty healthy. >> you know better worklife
management. in hindsight it doesn't make sense to leave the hospital. dennis would have done just as well without me there. you sort of make those decisions in life. >> what is something you either gave up four lent or that you should? [laughter] >> i can think of a thousand things that i should. i think that one i probably should give up would be watching sportscenter in my office in the morning instead of morning shows. >> that sounds healthy. >> it is a challenge. >> what is something you should actually give up? >> probably -- >> what would you change about your self? >> just in general? building on what we talked about
having a better worklife balance, to have some -- it's important to remember in the white house someone said and i didn't listen to it is a marathon, not a sprint. it's a think about it that way. >> the ultimate question, we know the president reads david brooks and "the new york times" editorials. we know the president reads the new yorker. what is something the president reads coming you know he reads it and you are confident that it was on his ipad that would surprise us? >> good question. he reads, like i said a lot of magazines. espn and sports illustrated. but what is surprising wouldn't be the any sort of specific publication. but he finds things in the internet digging pretty deep that are interesting articles
that someone has written. there are subject matter exper experts. he mentioned a very fascinating piece about -- i don't remember what it was, but about this is an issue that has to do with climate change, but very interested in that and he reads a lot more fiction and short stories. but he is a man for people that think the magazine when president obama is single-handedly. >> we have a lot of young people in this audience and watching live stream or watching this on c-span. what's your advice to a young person working in this administration or on the hill about how to succeed in washington? >> i would say two things.
one, i would recommend people go work on campaigns. and i think that is the ultimate meritocracy in politics. once you get out it doesn't matter how old you are, where you went to school, where you came from if you are smart you will get a chance to do things. that is step one. step two is never work for a person you think is going to win, work for food you want to win because that will be what works best. i had a chance to work on a couple campaigns that felt like crusades and causes. the ones that feel like you work at a company, that isn't so good. >> i can't let you go without finding out who your final four will be. >> i think this year -- i went to georgetown and i usually screw my bracket up. it isn't that far. this year i may not. that probably won't be a problem for me. so at this exact moment my pick would be florida, arizona, louisville and virginia.
>> into the final two? >> florida and arizona with floor of thflorida the national. >> and is your bracket more or less accurate than the president? >> in recent years mine is much less accurate because in the 2009, went to georgetown law school the president picked georgetown -- would have gone to see georgetown and the beat by two points together he then picked georgetown to go and they destroyed his bracket and now he loses in the first round. he's been doing much better than i have. >> i have to ask while harvard go to the march us? >> i suspect they will and i think they will win in the first round again. >> so they will when? >> yes. and then they will go on at that point. >> i want to thank those of you watching on live stream and
c-span. c-span, thank you for carrying this fascinating conversation. and i would like to thank dan pfeiffer who made this possible and politico and bank of america for making the conversations possible and all of you for coming out. thank you for a great conversation. >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] earlier this week we showed you the house government reform and oversight hearing. while the former irs officials be a 20 again invoke her fifth amendment rights. the house ways and means committee today announced that the irs would provide her documents regarding the irs targeting investigation. charan dave camp released a statement that reads in part this is a significant step
forward from the few documents we have received we know that washington, d.c. orchestrated the targeting of group groups supporting for tax-exempt status. surveillance of existing tax-exempt groups and formed the proposed five o. one c. four rules designed to push conservative groups out of the public forum. the remaining documents are the key to determining the level of wrongdoing and deception committed by the agency. that is from david camp. we will continue to follow the story and bring you updates as available. suffice it to say, most of the health policy really isn't hopelessly at all. it is essentially budget policy. and so, the congress just ducks on so many of the big issues and ends up putting together something that in the parliament of washington might be called a patch. maybe it's an extension. maybe it's called a stopgap. but the fact is it docks the big
issues. it repeatedly ducks the big issue is. particularly on medicare when you have 10,000 people eligible for medicare everyday. there is a very real cost attached with that. so, now the challenge is to try to find a way to move beyond this fixation on budgeting. it would be one thing if it were a sound budget policy. but so often, as i have indicated don't get at the structural kind of issues and move beyond this sort of lurch from one sort of budget calamity to another and come up with some sensible budget policy. ..
we also write the rules come by the way. we don't have led criminal authority. we have the power to bring the approval of our commission, civil action, civil fraud action and negligence action against those who violate the federal securities law. we can't send anyone to jail, but we can assess civil penalties. the level of penalties, it's not as high as we would like to be. there's some legislation in congress to give us authority to assess higher penalties. we can require others to did wrongdoing said disgorge their
own data gains, the profit. we have the power in the appropriate is to bar some is from the securities industry so that they cannot basically live another day to defraud again. >> securities and exchange commission chairman mary jo white sunday night it:00 on c-span q&a. >> coming up and about 45 minutes we will take you to the brookings institution in washington for a discussion on where the ukrainian crisis might come next and how the u.s. and europe might respond to defuse the standoff in crimea coming up live at 2:00 p.m. eastern. until then part of today's washington journal. >> joining us from our new york studio is a new msnbc host, joy reid. tell us about your show. >> guest: well we are at 2:00 p.m. eastern monday through friday, and we are -- i like to
call of a combination of policy, politics, and culture in that order. we tried obviously do the news of the day. we have to let people know what's happening, but we have to do some analysis. and then we have a little fun ever so often. there's a lot of stuff happening in the culture says he won this show just started, february 24 if. the media are cool but your show when it came on was joy reid says her new msnbc show won't be one hour of what republicans socked. [laughter] >> guest: yes. i was asked a question by the writer, atomic christopher. i read just going to go after republicans every day? no. what we want to do is have a conversation. there are a lot of issues upon which there is great disappointment, the conservative movement, what the republican party is doing, but we want to get republicans to come on and talk about a rather than just talk about them. the event michael mendez on, the
republicans. even at on the candidate from texas who is running for governor. she is running in that republican primary. we tried encourage people on the right to come on the show. it is fine. come on in. the water's fine. >> host: what are your politics? >> guest: my politics is, i grew up in a household of a mom who was an immigrant to the united states from the british side, my father was from the condo. my parents were split on it. my father was a reagan republican. my mother was of a yellow dog democrat. an absolute dialogue -- die-hard democrat. she came and went john f. kennedy had first become president. we grew up very watch democrats. i was a liberal columnist and still am for the miami "herald". i have worked in democratic politics. i definitely have a strong
personal point of view, but i am also intrigued and interested in the other side. i find a lot of -- some confounding, some fascinating. i'm interested in having that dialogue. a lot of what we did was debate. we would just, you know, have the debate. i think that is the great thing that cable news and talk radio allows you to do when you're willing to and can get the other side to engage. >> host: have you been following c. peck? >> guest: of course. you know, i feel like what happens in things is it is preaching to the choir. this is of pep rally. it is not a place where they are engaging in the battle of ideas but there to reinforce one another and to emphatically say, we are right in the other guy is wrong. that is effectively what they have done. so the speeches i have been
watching, of what has been going on. i think fiscal conservatives, there is a bubble. i think that within that bubble they feel that if they just explain their ideas better they would do better. but i think it is somewhat limited. a lot of the core really die-hard principles on the right eye things that if you roll them out politically a very hard to sell. the idea as paul ryan have put ford of medicare which is relied upon, putting it into a voucher program, it doesn't matter. it is not popular because people realize and it. ryan had an interesting line. democrats and liberals are offering to offering people a false up to mike and and and the soul. if you have ever experienced why you want a full stomach. it is counter intuitive detritus of people on the idea that if we remove benefits the benefits to
your soul are better than that milieu are able to give your kid i just think it is a core difference between conservatives and liberals. how do you attack it, liberals, and then say let's try and help meet the need. conservatives say philosophically it is a bad idea to of meet the need his it breeds dependency. >> host: should the democrats pay attention to the midterm elections or move on to 2016? >> guest: not paying attention, that question itself is the core of a problem. democrats are great when it comes to presidential elections. the young, the minority, the single woman, the urban voter. they all turn out in great numbers and presidential elections, an demographically democrats have a distinct advantage, and it is getting bigger because the part of our population that is growing is
the younger co-worker that is much more minority laden. as we go forward democrats go into elections with 200 plus select toro votes essentially in the bag because they are the party of the big city, the party of the under voter and a minority voter and a single woman voter. when you drop out of midterms u.s. essentially allow complete retrenchment and all the things you said you wanna during the election. when you had all of these masses of people, 2008 the then skip 2010 midterms become completely different. they're much more like the republican party. much older, brighter cannot world, suburban as opposed to urban. you have purple states and loose states. states like ohio that were won by president obama in 2008 ticket republican governance in
2010. it was a huge air on the part of the democratic party. a huge error, and democrats have to create abbott of continual voting. otherwise the it manages mean nothing. >> host: they have a demographic advantage? >> guest: it's getting bigger. look at the number of latinos, it's a growing cohort. just right now the latino vote is 65%. the jewish vote, between 70 and 80%. and those parts of our population are growing and are very highly concentrated among meander voters.
people are much more in that demographic category. memo prefer the policy. therefore the idea of universal health care, much more moderate. they resumed the advantage because it is their base that actually turns out. >> host: joy reid is our guest 2:00 p.m. eastern time on msnbc monday through friday. politics. >> caller: good morning. boy, do i hate chris christie. somebody keep him, taken in go. leaving come november. so i don't know why.
please run for governor of new jersey. anybody at this point. >> host: mind you dislike chris christie? >> caller: add on to us and as far as i can tell him. i never would. so that's about it for me. i don't like him, and on trusted >> host: of light. thank you. any response? >> guest: it is fascinating to me. the chris christie said we as republicans and conservatives can let the media define who we are. this is a guy whose adoration from the media was unchallenged until the bridge kate scandal cannot. it was the media and a lot of ways to make chris christie star
. he did achieve a high level of popularity. he was able to cultivate a lot of democratic support which we are now learning some of which might have been more, i don't know, covert and spontaneous. what is fascinating is that chris christie now that he has lost his media love is able to go to gain with the conservatives. he asked for federal funds for the state. now that the media is not cheerleading for and many more common now as a way of getting back into the big races for the party. and never understood the kind of love for chris christie on the media level. i felt that the treatment of teachers, the sort of yelling at people at town halls, the treatment of his constituents was rather shabby. so i was fascinated by this idea that that kind of bullying
behavior was kind of cheated in a little late. awaited there was a reason, one of the reasons that he was authentic and real. i thought it was just rather rude. it is interesting to me that now the people see that same sort of bullying behavior played up by members of the staff and we don't know if he himself had any involvement, but we see his staff paving in a manner that speaks of bullying to beat and the media is going to rock this. and never thought he was that viable to won a primary. the you know now that the media is not on his son i guess maybe you will gain fans on the right. >> host: karen buchanan tweets and, is there an actual field for the democratic nomination or is everyone all aboard? >> i think that at the moment there is not much of the field
that could challenge hillary clinton. the reality is that the pent-up demand, presidential elections are about who has the greatest hunter. i think gang an african american voters, they had a great desire to see barack obama be president of the united states, but so did women do the american women have that incredible pent-up demand residual from 2008 and really want to see a woman has sent to that high office. hillary trenton on the democratic side is an incredibly viable candidate. i think if she gets in which most people presume she will it will be august opera. the question becomes, is there somebody that mike barack obamacare, of know where and challenger and of fulsome way meeting raise the kind of money that you raised and create the kind of high profile that you didn't do that again in 2016. adelle see that person yet.
anything can change. anything can happen. right now there's not much rivalry. >> host: the former managing editor of the website as well. graduate of harvard. harry calling from pittsburgh on a republican line. >> caller: i think president obama is in a good place. but go back, as the black caucus can help them, the naacp and nbc is great for helping them. jesse jackson and al sharpton. call him a racist. that is what you do with everyone disagrees with this president. seems to work with this country. never worked in russia. dylan is a racist for attacking a president. everything else.
thank you. have a nice day. >> host: that terry in pittsburgh. >> guest: he hit the trifecta. this is something i find intriguing that happens on the right. name every black person you can think of that is a liberal, use the word racist and then to go when you people. he hit the trifecta paid nothing to add. >> host: mike is calling from has been, i am. >> caller: hello. thank you for c-span. the two channels of wants the most of the bbc and fox news. >> host: while you watch those two channels? >> caller: i want to see how both sides think and how their logic works. i was raised by conservative democrats but basically in an independent now.
i like to vote for the best candid it. >> host: go ahead with your question. >> caller: the two dozen election when obama got elected, the results would be impacted and other republicans. i do half sold fox news, m.s. in d.c., c-span, all the media responsible. the winter of the -- for 20 minutes all i saw was brought obama and oprah winfrey, obama zero brought. and then i'm thinking to myself, gee, what would rush limbaugh or mitch mcconnell would like at this moment. that's all we saw for 20 minutes >> host: i think we got a lot of information there. any response for that,? >> guest: oprah is a celebrity when she's on tv next to someone you get elected president that's going to make tv.
she got a lot of attention is yet to see somebody with that level of celebrity be in the proximity of a president and essentially endorsed them. i think that is not anything particular to their race. it's because she is a celebrity and a detention. justin bieber, everybody. he gets attention. >> host: joy reid, how many mikes are there that wants fox and in the ascendancy? >> guest: i think more than people think. i think some people want to hear what the other side had to say. but i do object to making the to the equivalent. not just because i worked there, but even a forward to it in massive d.c. i feel like what is happening sometimes in the conservative media, and i want isolated to fox, what is happening inside of conservative media, much like your previous
caller to hear what they were saying. a lot of it is just hammering home a very singular message and then doing it in every other media and it's all the same message and it's very consistent , very repetitive. hammer over and over and over again. i think that is one of the things that costs are polarization. we no longer agree on a set of facts. you can choose and cherry pick facts that make you feel good. for a lot of people that the right is catering to, not the entire right, but to a certain core group their is a certain sense of self victimization that is being fed all day every day in all of the media, whether you're reading in on why listening on radio or watching some of the television. and i think that it is designed to provoke a certain response, and it is effective. but it also negates any type of
debate. you cannot engage in a debate this summer will not agree with you that there are a certain set of objectives tax which is a negative thing. maybe more people should just watch it also that they can at least give some alternative facts. if your not willing to let them penetrate and is believed anything, really not sure how we fix the polarization of the country. >> host: some people would argue that they feel the same way about msnbc, but on the other side of the aisle. >> guest: again, i worked there. i have to say, there is not -- i mean, roger ailes is a political operative and was a longtime political operative. there is not an equivalent of him in any other network, not even just hours. there isn't that person the was a crash after a political narrative now running in news organizations. as a singular and unique thing.
they do a good job. they do an excellent job of what their task with. i think there are journalists over there who are attempting to do good journalism and good work. but i just think -- >> host: a couple of twitter responses to the hillary clinton question. this is dan saying elizabeth warren could come out of nowhere perry says john kerry has much appeal. terry is calling in from chippewa falls, wisconsin on the stomach redline. >> the opposite of perry from pittsburg, an all white male that gets it. part of that 35 percent that they talked about the other day that voted for the president. that's where i fallout. your doing a heck of a job. keep up the good work. terrific job. terrific job. >> host: we will move on to a
sam tomahawk kentucky. >> caller: hello. a watch on television and msnbc. i am religiously republican. i live down here where lyndon baines johnson come down here on the war on poverty. you come down here and elected this county. it's run by all republicans. and the poor people out here vote republican because they'll work in a coal mine. there's one man that runs the county. we have to go 23 miles to a hospital. the 018 miles and other with a hospital. we have nothing in this county. the poor schools don't have no books. they don't have nothing. they want to talk about poverty, alan the world as kids going to learn anything if they can't get what they need. and it just burns me that the republicans and doing what they do. progress of obama, feel so sorry for the man.
they down and every time they turn around. but mitch mcconnell has never been in this county and everyone votes for the fool. in the same way with rand paul. he has never been in this county. he comes down here and he gets the votes down here. just bothers me that the people down here and a lot of the people out of state to not see what the republican party is all about. >> guest: and that breaks my heart. i think that your call just got to the heart of one of the real dangers of absolute political polarization, that people almost have their political party as their religion. they're just riding because this is my ideology. the ideological principles, i am with this group of people, but i never will them accountable for what it is that they're
delivering to me. our politicians, like to leaders of to and including the president of the united states are public servants. i think when we are only demanding of our politicians that they deliver as the ideology, said the words, the liver and of the trail toward the other party, should they hate the other party more than anyone else and that they appeal to our ideology rather than delivering substance for the people who love for them, i think it's tragic. delicate the situation with the water, some three and a thousand people, americans, american citizens not able to give there kids a glass of lemonade and was rejected because the ohio river is being polluted by a company whose ceo is in florida relaxing in his beautiful home. the idea that american citizens would be denied the basics, and the sustenance of life, the basic a virginities of life and are allowed to languish in poverty but we will send you will feed your ideology, think that's wrong. i am hoping that eventually
people will start voting their absolute interest. vote here economic interest. it's not about ideology or someone appealing your religious morality. your religious morality is your personal morality. vote for people who deliver you the substance that you with your tax dollars have paid for. i think that is so important. this is the reason you cannot and will not voucher as medicare elderly americans, senior citizens of this is something have paid into enured wrong to protected. people need to do the same with the basic living. it is tragic. hearing the stories is incredibly tragic. >> host: i just all like the opinion, format her that dominates news channels. i miss old, straight news. >> guest: and i hear that. and when i went to it -- well as a kid growing and we were watching it dan rather or the news, the news came on one of
the three networks. and those networks still exist produced a lab broadcast news that does tried mightily to just be objective, but people understand now what is that everybody has a point of view. and i think people hold it against even news anchors for knowing that internally they have appointed you. i can totally understand how people feel, taking what used to be sort of -- i don't know, it was a national conversation and turned it into a thousand little vulcanized conversations. i don't and that's necessarily give for the culture. it is what it is. a tremendous democratization. people can go on the internet and form their own reality. it is difficult, are to navigate, and are for news organizations. news organizations struggle with that as well. >> host: the next call comes from charles and myrtle beach, south carolina. >> caller: thank you for
taking my call. congratulations on your show. you're a breath of fresh air. a look your balanced approach to educating the public. great job. my question relative to this conference is going on with the undertone of libertarianism is it not true that with the goal to destroy a strong centralized government that several things are a play. one is not being in a position to bailout the banks in the industry that we saw in 2008, but secondly if that does happen and as it has happened we have seen since the 80's, a significant rise in inequality of the middle-class and the lower class. and that -- it people look at such as secretary rice is video on inequality for all, is now on
netflix. they could be educated on the facts, statistical facts, the numbers that then can draw a clear picture of what is truth, what is fiction, what is hyperbole and what is not. and it the second question for you, do you have an opinion on the move that is under way to provide a constitutional amendment to change the current law that says that a corporation is a person and that money is speech. thank you for your time. >> yes. there is lot packed in there, but i agree with you that one of the probably worse things that has happened to the american body politic is this notion of corporate person had. pier libertarianism. i ran to my belief, said that the a deal time in her estimation in american history was the late 19th century. if you think about who we were
in the late 19th century, this is the robber baron era of pure laissez-faire capitalism with no worker protection, no union can a child labor laws, no minimum wage, the idea that essentially if you're rich you are essentially morally superior because you have shown that you are smarter and better and therefore will make the right decision for everybody else. that is not what america has been for hundred years. the 20th century was a triumph for the american middle-class because when workers got the charity, when you had unions able to argue for a living wage, for your work week, when you had the union movement after world war ii when people were able to rip afford the refrigerator they made there refrigerators and cars. we came to be what we are economically because of a strong consumer and middle class. our gdp is overwhelmingly made
up of consumer spending. so we have to make sure that there is some parity for workers. now we have ceos making 400 times with their average employe he makes and employees have lost incredible power. now what ceos are supposed to do is improve shareholder value. you can do that by laying off your work force. there is no more fealty in a lot of ways between scl and the person who works for them. restoring that is going to be difficult because we have gone so far in the a direction between corporate person had, stock options rather than getting paid in real money. it is really hard to put that genie back in a bottle. if we don't we're just going to see any quality continued rise and raced back toward the 19th century. >> host: alfred .., joy is on the something. gop creates fact. last month obama was a dictator. this week he is weak.
another tweet, and this is from china. she says, how often have you or anyone on msnbc held the president accountable? >> two good questions. on the first one, it is fascinating that president obama and one day is a weakling and the next day is a dictator. those two things cannot be true. the same time there has been high finding of of vladimir to and which i find odd for americans to do sort of almost is teaming him over our own president's. as far as president obama, i can tell you that when the irs thing happened for instance it was covered extensively until it was essentially debunked. i think people pay attention -- if you like it just the coverage on our network, the rollout of the affordable care act i think the white house would find that it has been weathering, relentless, and it was relentlessly negative. no one was cheerleading the
rollout of the affordable care act. i know before i was even an immense in b.c. i was writing columns really quite negative on the idea of dropping the public auction and really not sure that that made the bill go through. although now looking at it on balance having universal health care is always better than not. if you look at the coverage if you are specifically talking about us just go back to october of last year and look at the entire rest of the year. just one issue. i don't think that you would find that to have been cheating. >> host: henry is calling in from michigan on the democrats' line. >> caller: good morning. >> guest: hello. >> caller: msnbc has really done a fantastic thing by giving you your show. i am going to watch as much as i possibly can. i think you're wonderful, intelligent, and beautiful.
three points. want to try to make three points. first of all, there was a facebook post center in wind and david keene was the -- speaking. talked about the out reach. was tongue-in-cheek and said that there was standing-room-only at the seat back conference. and david keene seized on that and tried to make it seem like there was standing-room-only. we saw pictures and there was nobody there. so as long as republicans are the party of ted nugent who calls the president a subhuman mongrel, rush limbaugh who calls people like sandra taluca one contraception a prostitute, then we're not going to have in the average for the republican party i would like for you, joy, if you could, to put into context
to things for me. the verses, can you explain to the people i'll read states seem to be doing so much better and how the government subsidy in these states to have few populations and loose states that have most of the population , house subsidies figure into that. the second thing i would like for you to put into context is this line of the year where president obama said that if you like your health care and your doctor you can keep it. health-insurance companies were actually responsible for making the president look like he lied. >> host: thank you very much. what response you have for that? >> guest: very quickly, i think that the idea of any person who wants to be a credible political candidate palin around with the likes of ted nugent, i find that astounding. and think that the conservative
movement would do well if they want to do out region broaden there base to walk away from some of the extreme talkers, the people who say really of will -- ugly things because they don't help you broaden the base. just makes it sound angry and mean and ugly. number two, i think the caller was talking about the second thing being -- well, let's just go to the third thing. if you like your plan you can keep it. that was a truncated and fortunate way of saying that if you have -- 85 percent of people already have insurance. nothing the affordable care act has done cans caused anyone to lose that. if sharon -- if your insurance policy canceled your insurance they're job, that's not the affordable care act. much of the market was cut rate insurance, bargain-basement. if you went in the emergency
room you would pay most of that bill. deductible was so huge you could still wind up in bankruptcy. what they have done is those plans are not illegal and immoral. when the president said that he was not take into account that there would be one and a half million plans which are now illegal. and if they're no longer legal and insurance companies to offer you a legal plan. that does not mean you did nothing. it means you get the new plan offered to you. it's actually a very complicated thing to explain. they tried to a truncated which is never a good idea. that's what happened there. i'm sorry, the second point i don't remember. >> host: it was about subsidies going to the red states more than the blue states >> guest: thank you. the first thing he said was arrested for doing better. that's actually not true. the only blue state that winds up in the ten states with the highest level of poverty is in mexico. of the man is talking about the old south.
the states with the highest rate of uninsured, florida, texas, louisiana, alabama, mississippi, tremendous poverty. so what has happened is you have red and blue america very different in terms of the economy. lower wage economy. a lot of job creation. factories will locate in the south because the don't have to worry about unions. you're seeing a lot of that moonlighting magnolia movement to a lower wage no corporate taxes, no corporate property taxes state. that doesn't mean the services of better because what you have this tremendous poverty. what happens is the blue states, states like new york, california , massachusetts wind up being donors states. new york pays more in federal taxes than they get back from the federal government or as louisiana, mississippi, alabama get back considerably more in
federal tax money than the opinion. they are essentially the recipient states. if you want to talk about who is on the dole, it is essentially those states except texas because they have oil. you do have this weird thing where the states or ideologically detest the federal government and actually rely more. is just one of those ironies of our politics. >> host: joyce is calling from camden ten, missouri. you're on with joy reid. >> caller: hello. there has been so much said. i would like to debate all of it, but i will say that the bias on the mainstream media is so biased against republicans or any republican thoughts of republican women that it is really awful. for instance, chris matthews, al
sharpton. this thing with chris christie, the people on msnbc and other mainstream media have absolutely ruined that man over a bridge situation. but they led the fact that benghazi -- and we still don't know who screwed that up because those people had begged for assistance for months before there were murdered. some of the people guarding them were sent away in august before this happened. the government was told that al qaeda was -- >> host: you put a lot out there. would you like joy reid to respond to. >> guest: i would like her to respond to the bias. she said that -- >> host: we have the point. thank you, ma'am. joy reid. >> guest: all start from the last and go to the first. that whole soliloquy on benghazi, ma'am, there are reams
of data it, reports put out that have gone through an exhaustive detail what happened. all of those things that you just heard which are repeated over and over on right wing blog and talk radio, those are not facts. it is really important that we start to get to an objective facts. none of that, what you just said , is in any of the reports that have been done for the federal government. you can read them. they are all on line. what happened was quite simple. you had on the anniversary, pockets of the uprising, pockets of protest, some of which in other parts of libya and egypt had to do with that video that was made the offending parts of the muslim world. the five inside libya was that the benghazi situation was that was more often to people who
opportunistic they went in and attacked our embassies. all of these fantasies about waitrons flying over and hillary clinton operating them and purposely not protecting our embassies, for god's sakes, those are not facts. those are things that are on right-wing radio. you need to look at the real narrative of what happened and stop having -- these conspiracy theories don't help us. as far as violence, i don't really know what she's talking about. she would have to give me some specific example. i don't know. should have to give me an example of. >> host: sylvia is calling from broken arrow, okla. on our independent line. for some reason my phone is not punching up. somebody downstairs. >> caller: can you hear me? >> host: we are listening. >> caller: high. i love c-span. i am so glad to be on the talk-show again. has been a while.
joy, i have three questions for you. what a blessing it is to see a strong, strong black woman of the lord to take this platform. my heart and soul go out of the lord and also to bless you commit to keep up a good, good work and a good fight of faith. so many individuals. i want to hear the three questions and going to ask you. how are you going to bring to platforms, the democrats and republicans together to come to one issue, homeless, jobless rate, how are they going to help the veterans of our united states of america when my firstborn son, still active duty. i'm a military mom.
>> host: you know what, can you bring this to a close? >> caller: okay. next question, please, i have never watched msnbc. i will start watching it as long as your face is there. the other thing is that i want to say on my third question is that can you come to oklahoma city and tulsa? >> host: thank you very much. >> guest: i would love to come to tulsa. yes, you can. there are certain issues that should unite everyone. one is the need to create an economy ruined it wants a job and find one and a good one and a job where you can feed your family without having to work two or three jobs and people are standing of the feed all they're doing the backbreaking work that makes this economy work and deserved have a decent living wage. we should all be able to agree
on that. most americans to across the political divide. it is only fair that people were targeted decent wage. i don't think that is ideological. we should all agree that we all deserve to breathe clean, free air and have clean water. i looked at a situation like west virginia and say, for god's sakes, this is not a republican and democratic issue. i don't care of those people are all one under% republicans, they deserve a clean glass of water for their kids. we all agree on that. with are not your state is of red state or blue state, we agree that you're a citizen deserves to have the basics. that is something that i really hope we all agree on. we will debate how we get there, but let's just agree that we all respect the presidency, lover is in it, respect one another. and let's debate on how we get to a commonplace or we are all living in a dignified, decent
life. i don't think that's too much to ask. >> host: just a couple of minutes left. covington, georgia. hi. >> caller: yes. good morning. i want to just sit thank you so much. i am so proud of you and the vision that has been too long coming. i have two points and now we're running short on time. one, my favorite, president clinton's of a long time ago, talk about politics, the republicans fight when they're right in five when they're wrong democrats will not fight when they're right and sure will vie with no room. you know, to bring all this to a cap, and from the great state of georgia and they're hoping we will send a new representative from my district to take a johnson's place because joy, the thing that happened with a larger commons, that didn't
happen in a capsule predicted not happen just the other day. it started three years ago when the republicans started to make statements. the congressional black caucus. we won't even fight for their rights. so republicans, they will fight, the situation from fox news. all kind of scenario, all kind of untruths. all will be untrue. the democrats have facts. bill have facts right in front of them. and going to say, i love said. i hope this is less turn. >> host: we get the point. >> guest: not all democrats lack fight. congressman elisha cummings most definitely has a lot of fight in him. the chairman on that committee has attended two of attempted to put up cherry pick parts of transcripts.